Looks like 2019 will be the second RWC in a row where none of the participants are qualifying for the first time. Kenya and Hong Kong are the only new nations still in with a shot, and I wouldn't fancy either's chances against Uruguay in the repechage. In fact I think the odds are we will see the exact same teams as at RWC2015. A shame.

Not gonna lie, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in the one pool would make things very, very interesting. Throw in an inform Fiji and possibly Tonga from the 5th pot and that pool would be the toughest in RWC history. Best case scenario for Japan is to be grouped with Wales and Ireland, that's their best shot at reaching the QF's. That's of course not taking into account other spoilers in the 4th bracket. If Samoa turns up in form then that's another hazardous pool. If Georgia are to have any chance of progression they need to be pooled with either Wales or Scotland.

I don't remember anymore: are Fiji and Samoa already qualified or there's still a second leg of games to be played between them and Tonga?

According to the qualification wikipedia page its both years 2016+2017. Would be surprised if it was any different now as we would have heard about qualified nation sin June 2016.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Figaro wrote:Looks like 2019 will be the second RWC in a row where none of the participants are qualifying for the first time. Kenya and Hong Kong are the only new nations still in with a shot, and I wouldn't fancy either's chances against Uruguay in the repechage. In fact I think the odds are we will see the exact same teams as at RWC2015. A shame.

But that is not so illogical... Take the first 25 places in the World Rankings (13.03.17) and all but Kenya & Germany have been WC participants. Out of these 25 the only former participant is Zimbabwe... Let´s be realistic as well, as much as many would want to see debutantes on each World Cup it is unlikely, and the gap between a T1 and a T3/Developing 1 is too big. Sometimes even in some regions alone the gap is immense (i.e: Asia and South America, the latter even has 2 RWC participants).

The only region where qualification is a tough competition is in Europe.

I wouldn´t be so sure on whether we will see Uruguay in the World Stage again unless they beat USA or Canada to gain an Americas 1 or 2 place.

Figaro wrote:Looks like 2019 will be the second RWC in a row where none of the participants are qualifying for the first time. Kenya and Hong Kong are the only new nations still in with a shot, and I wouldn't fancy either's chances against Uruguay in the repechage. In fact I think the odds are we will see the exact same teams as at RWC2015. A shame.

But that is not so illogical... Take the first 25 places in the World Rankings (13.03.17) and all but Kenya & Germany have been WC participants. Out of these 25 the only former participant is Zimbabwe... Let´s be realistic as well, as much as many would want to see debutantes on each World Cup it is unlikely, and the gap between a T1 and a T3/Developing 1 is too big. Sometimes even in some regions alone the gap is immense (i.e: Asia and South America, the latter even has 2 RWC participants).

The only region where qualification is a tough competition is in Europe.

I wouldn´t be so sure on whether we will see Uruguay in the World Stage again unless they beat USA or Canada to gain an Americas 1 or 2 place.

We missed out on RWC 2015 due to extremely bad referring from one Lourens Van Der Merwe. I hope he is seeing this wherever he is. I wish i had that footage with me, extremely riduculous calls. We beat Namibia and Madagascar with a bonus, and our last hurdle was Zimbabwe only for him to spoil our party. That game still hurts me deeply until today. Anyway, we will fight it out again this year, hoping for the best.

I will look for that footage and avail it to everyone for all to see that im not being a cry baby, but it actually happened.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Not gonna lie, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in the one pool would make things very, very interesting. Throw in an inform Fiji and possibly Tonga from the 5th pot and that pool would be the toughest in RWC history. Best case scenario for Japan is to be grouped with Wales and Ireland, that's their best shot at reaching the QF's. That's of course not taking into account other spoilers in the 4th bracket. If Samoa turns up in form then that's another hazardous pool. If Georgia are to have any chance of progression they need to be pooled with either Wales or Scotland.

Rules are clear from the beginning but this scenario is indeed possible and in my personal opinion is rubbish. The draw is still being made way too much in advance, in my opinion it should be done after the November tests of 2018, then there would be 4 November windows + 3 June windows + 3 6 Nations / REC and 3 RCh... (now it´s 2 November series, 2 June series + 2 6N / REC and only ONE RCh)

Pool A has only 1 team that made it to QFs in the last RWC, and 4 teams kicked out in the Pool stage. Plus it is the same Pool they had last time only swapping Ireland for England.Pool B has the champion, 3rd and 4th team in the last RWC.Pool C has 2 teams kicked out in QFs in 2015.Pool D has the runner up, a quarter finalist...

This is clearly what the NH hopes for... in my opinion the 4 SH teams should fall in different groups...

Neptune wrote:We missed out on RWC 2015 due to extremely bad referring from one Lourens Van Der Merwe. I hope he is seeing this wherever he is. I wish i had that footage with me, extremely riduculous calls. We beat Namibia and Madagascar with a bonus, and our last hurdle was Zimbabwe only for him to spoil our party. That game still hurts me deeply until today. Anyway, we will fight it out again this year, hoping for the best.

I will look for that footage and avail it to everyone for all to see that im not being a cry baby, but it actually happened.

I remember that tournament, everybody was also expecting Madagascar to stir things up since they had beaten Namibia not that long before. Plus their full stadium and pre match war dance they gained various fans...

One thing: wouldn't Americas 1 be in the fifth band, with Europe 2/Oceania 3 (viz. Tonga) in the fourth band? This would accurately reflect both current world rankings and 2015 RWC results, where all three American qualifiers finished bottom.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Not gonna lie, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in the one pool would make things very, very interesting. Throw in an inform Fiji and possibly Tonga from the 5th pot and that pool would be the toughest in RWC history. Best case scenario for Japan is to be grouped with Wales and Ireland, that's their best shot at reaching the QF's. That's of course not taking into account other spoilers in the 4th bracket. If Samoa turns up in form then that's another hazardous pool. If Georgia are to have any chance of progression they need to be pooled with either Wales or Scotland.

To be honest I think any of the "5 nations" are capable of blowing up and chocking a RWC game with Japan in Japan. Best chance is actually to draw NZ in top tier so they don't get caught as the third side in a split group again. NZ will march to QFs leaving a straight play off between 2&3, providing they see off the two other teams.

thatrugbyguy wrote:Not gonna lie, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in the one pool would make things very, very interesting. Throw in an inform Fiji and possibly Tonga from the 5th pot and that pool would be the toughest in RWC history. Best case scenario for Japan is to be grouped with Wales and Ireland, that's their best shot at reaching the QF's. That's of course not taking into account other spoilers in the 4th bracket. If Samoa turns up in form then that's another hazardous pool. If Georgia are to have any chance of progression they need to be pooled with either Wales or Scotland.

To be honest I think any of the "5 nations" are capable of blowing up and chocking a RWC game with Japan in Japan. Best chance is actually to draw NZ in top tier so they don't get caught as the third side in a split group again. NZ will march to QFs leaving a straight play off between 2&3, providing they see off the two other teams.

Who do you mean by 5 nations?

I can't see any of the sides struggling against Japan, save Italy.

Looking forward to the draw though, maybe it could be a bit more kind to us this time .

Their last two matches against 6N opposition they were close to winning, Wales only got a win in the dying seconds with a drop goal. We'll know more about where Japan are by the end of this year, they've got Ireland, Australia and France.

Raven wrote:Rules are clear from the beginning but this scenario is indeed possible and in my personal opinion is rubbish. The draw is still being made way too much in advance, in my opinion it should be done after the November tests of 2018, then there would be 4 November windows + 3 June windows + 3 6 Nations / REC and 3 RCh... (now it´s 2 November series, 2 June series + 2 6N / REC and only ONE RCh)

Pool A has only 1 team that made it to QFs in the last RWC, and 4 teams kicked out in the Pool stage. Plus it is the same Pool they had last time only swapping Ireland for England.Pool B has the champion, 3rd and 4th team in the last RWC.Pool C has 2 teams kicked out in QFs in 2015.Pool D has the runner up, a quarter finalist...

This is clearly what the NH hopes for... in my opinion the 4 SH teams should fall in different groups...

You can't merely have the RC teams in different groups just because of who they are, otherwise there's no point in having rankings. If the Boks and Pumas wanted to avoid being grouped with the All Blacks they should have put in better on field performances. The timing I do agree with. A lot can change between May 2017 and Sept 2019.

Raven wrote:Rules are clear from the beginning but this scenario is indeed possible and in my personal opinion is rubbish. The draw is still being made way too much in advance, in my opinion it should be done after the November tests of 2018, then there would be 4 November windows + 3 June windows + 3 6 Nations / REC and 3 RCh... (now it´s 2 November series, 2 June series + 2 6N / REC and only ONE RCh)

Pool A has only 1 team that made it to QFs in the last RWC, and 4 teams kicked out in the Pool stage. Plus it is the same Pool they had last time only swapping Ireland for England.Pool B has the champion, 3rd and 4th team in the last RWC.Pool C has 2 teams kicked out in QFs in 2015.Pool D has the runner up, a quarter finalist...

This is clearly what the NH hopes for... in my opinion the 4 SH teams should fall in different groups...

You can't merely have the RC teams in different groups just because of who they are, otherwise there's no point in having rankings. If the Boks and Pumas wanted to avoid being grouped with the All Blacks they should have put in better on field performances. The timing I do agree with. A lot can change between May 2017 and Sept 2019.

It´s not of who they are, but you can say it´s because of how they finished last World Cup and primarily the fact that I think it´s ridiculous to take a risk of having 3 of the 4 strongest SH (or yet alone, WR) teams together, mind you also maybe the ONLY SH representatives. By no means I am saying that Boks and Pumas SHOULD be helped to avoid the All Blacks or another tough opponent in a group stage nor I am suggesting they should be seeded as top of the group either. Argentina had the ABs in 2015 and no one said nothing about that, you wanna be champions you gotta beat them too. But at the same time, we know that only 2 teams make it out of the group and like this we won´t be seeing many North v South encounters in Quarters, so what´s the point of a World Cup then?.

I can´t imagine FIFA allowing Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay sharing the same group basing ourselves in the current Ranking.

The Fallacy is that the draw is 1 Year ahead of schedule, it should have been done like the Women's much closer to the World Cup.

Further Nations like Argentina or South Africa can only blame themselves of their current predicament.

Too much is being made of this draw once is made we can see the Pro's and Con's of the groupings. From a S & C perspective is manna from heaven as I can create a new Macrocyle and adjust the programs accordingly.

But in all fairness, when will the 12 automatic system be scrapped? I think, once tier 2's and strong tier 3's proove their case, and cause a bit of turmoil fighting to enter the RWC, is when things will really get thick for the automatic teams. I like the competitive nature of the REC where at least 4 teams are strong contenders.

Thomas wrote:The Fallacy is that the draw is 1 Year ahead of schedule, it should have been done like the Women's much closer to the World Cup.

Further Nations like Argentina or South Africa can only blame themselves of their current predicament.

Too much is being made of this draw once is made we can see the Pro's and Con's of the groupings. From a S & C perspective is manna from heaven as I can create a new Macrocyle and adjust the programs accordingly.

Actually, certain teams (specifically Argentina and Italy) are disadvantaged in the rankings, because the nature of the competitions they play in (RC and 6N respectively) means they play a lot of games against superior teams, therefore losing a lot of games, which depresses their ranking.

Similarly, other sides (Georgia is the best example) play in competitions where they are the strongest side, which means they win a lot of games, which gives them a small rankings boost.

Italy are currently ranked below Georgia, Japan and Fiji. Whilst I do think any of those teams would give Italy a run for their money, I'm not sure I'd say it's quite accurate that they be below those three.

This isn't to say that they would not want to take part in such competiitons, nor that Georgia wouldn't jump at the chance to join a T1 competition. But it does have a certain effect on their ranking positions. What I'm basically saying is that you probably can't really blame Argentina for happening to be 9th.

Thomas wrote:The Fallacy is that the draw is 1 Year ahead of schedule, it should have been done like the Women's much closer to the World Cup.

Further Nations like Argentina or South Africa can only blame themselves of their current predicament.

Too much is being made of this draw once is made we can see the Pro's and Con's of the groupings. From a S & C perspective is manna from heaven as I can create a new Macrocyle and adjust the programs accordingly.

Actually, certain teams (specifically Argentina and Italy) are disadvantaged in the rankings, because the nature of the competitions they play in (RC and 6N respectively) means they play a lot of games against superior teams, therefore losing a lot of games, which depresses their ranking.

Similarly, other sides (Georgia is the best example) play in competitions where they are the strongest side, which means they win a lot of games, which gives them a small rankings boost.

Italy are currently ranked below Georgia, Japan and Fiji. Whilst I do think any of those teams would give Italy a run for their money, I'm not sure I'd say it's quite accurate that they be below those three.

This isn't to say that they would not want to take part in such competiitons, nor that Georgia wouldn't jump at the chance to join a T1 competition. But it does have a certain effect on their ranking positions. What I'm basically saying is that you probably can't really blame Argentina for happening to be 9th.

Are you sure about it, or is it just a guess? Because on the other hand single wins in the 6N count a lot more in the rankings than in the REC. Italy could at most lose 0,43 points (if they play at home and Wales). They are so way down pointwise that they can't lose any points if they lose away against any 6N opposition.

While Georgia gains next to no points for wins and loses a lot if they actually lose a game. I am not a mathematician but here the opposite of your assumption could very well be true...

Also we know now for sure that one top20 team won't qualify for the world cup as Europe is one place short with Romania, Spain and Russia in the top20.

Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Tue, 21 Mar 2017, 11:50, edited 1 time in total.

How to grow rugby worldwide?Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Thomas wrote:The Fallacy is that the draw is 1 Year ahead of schedule, it should have been done like the Women's much closer to the World Cup.

Further Nations like Argentina or South Africa can only blame themselves of their current predicament.

Too much is being made of this draw once is made we can see the Pro's and Con's of the groupings. From a S & C perspective is manna from heaven as I can create a new Macrocyle and adjust the programs accordingly.

Actually, certain teams (specifically Argentina and Italy) are disadvantaged in the rankings, because the nature of the competitions they play in (RC and 6N respectively) means they play a lot of games against superior teams, therefore losing a lot of games, which depresses their ranking.

Similarly, other sides (Georgia is the best example) play in competitions where they are the strongest side, which means they win a lot of games, which gives them a small rankings boost.

Italy are currently ranked below Georgia, Japan and Fiji. Whilst I do think any of those teams would give Italy a run for their money, I'm not sure I'd say it's quite accurate that they be below those three.

This isn't to say that they would not want to take part in such competiitons, nor that Georgia wouldn't jump at the chance to join a T1 competition. But it does have a certain effect on their ranking positions. What I'm basically saying is that you probably can't really blame Argentina for happening to be 9th.

Just scrap the 12 automatic system altogether, alternatively put an equal amount of 12 teams for the qualifying stages.Surely, in which serious competitive slot do you have the number of automatic qualifiers more than qualifying teams. Apart from mediocre sports like cricket, It is unheard of. It sounds so ridiculous on paper.

Thomas wrote:The Fallacy is that the draw is 1 Year ahead of schedule, it should have been done like the Women's much closer to the World Cup.

Further Nations like Argentina or South Africa can only blame themselves of their current predicament.

Too much is being made of this draw once is made we can see the Pro's and Con's of the groupings. From a S & C perspective is manna from heaven as I can create a new Macrocyle and adjust the programs accordingly.

Of course one cannot be blind and deny that both Argentina and South Africa got themselves in their current position (many reasons but highlights perhaps being that one stopped calling players that play abroad to depend purely in their domestic SR team, the latter changed their managing structure and new players have been brought in that still need to adapt) and they will have to bounce back alone as no one will help them out, but I insist, if a World Cup can consist of a Pool with all but 1 SH teams and maybe even 2 PI´s teams we are really going to see an awful RWC.

I am not ranting about Argentina being 9th or South Africa 7th, I am just not happy with the possibility of various teams of the same Hemisphere in 1 Pool. It is a personal opinion though. We can agree to disagree.

Figaro wrote:Actually, certain teams (specifically Argentina and Italy) are disadvantaged in the rankings, because the nature of the competitions they play in (RC and 6N respectively) means they play a lot of games against superior teams, therefore losing a lot of games, which depresses their ranking.

Similarly, other sides (Georgia is the best example) play in competitions where they are the strongest side, which means they win a lot of games, which gives them a small rankings boost.

Italy are currently ranked below Georgia, Japan and Fiji. Whilst I do think any of those teams would give Italy a run for their money, I'm not sure I'd say it's quite accurate that they be below those three.

This isn't to say that they would not want to take part in such competiitons, nor that Georgia wouldn't jump at the chance to join a T1 competition. But it does have a certain effect on their ranking positions. What I'm basically saying is that you probably can't really blame Argentina for happening to be 9th.

I am not so sure about the advantage and disadvantage on the tournaments they are in cause they had also 2 November series and one June window to gain some points. It´s worthless now, although I wonder what would have happened if Argentina would have beaten either Wales or Scotland (lost by 4 and 3 points respectively) and if South Africa wouldn´t have lost to Italy & Wales.

I do agree on your opinion in regards to Italy, in theory they aren´t less than Fiji, Georgia or Japan and anybody could beat anybody there. I would say it´s kind of the same situation with Los Pumas, they could beat various teams that are above them in this current ranking, and they might even do that in the RWC too, but again, it´s the point I´m trying to make.

RugbyLiebe wrote:Are you sure about it, or is it just a guess? Because on the other hand single wins in the 6N count a lot more in the rankings than in the REC. Italy could at most lose 0,43 points (if they play at home and Wales). They are so way down pointwise that they can't lose any points if they lose away against any 6N opposition.

While Georgia gains next to no points for wins and loses a lot if they actually lose a game. I am not a mathematician but here the opposite of your assumption could very well be true...

Also we know now for sure that one top20 team won't qualify for the world cup as Europe is one place short with Romania, Spain and Russia in the top20.

That is based on current rankings though, and Nr 21 and 22 are Uruguay and Canada, who might end up their RWC run in front of Spain and Russia unless one of these 2 end up qualifying through the Repechage.

Europe could have been given an extra play off place, that we can agree on, perhaps against Africa 2 or Americas 3 to make it to Repechage.